Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Benjamini-Hochberg #205

Open
J-Ferris opened this issue Apr 3, 2024 · 0 comments
Open

Benjamini-Hochberg #205

J-Ferris opened this issue Apr 3, 2024 · 0 comments

Comments

@J-Ferris
Copy link

J-Ferris commented Apr 3, 2024

I am trying to interpret the results of a Dunn's test with a BH correction but I'm confused with how the dunn_test() function applies the correction and determines significance. I have 4 groups of shark species, so 6 pairwise comparisons and the resulting table tells me that 5 of my groupings are significantly different (adj.p<0.05).

However, when I perform the step-up procedure myself, I only get 4 significant results. I am ranking the adj.p.values smallest to largest, and comparing them to (i/m)*Q, where i=ranking, m=total number of comparisons, and Q=0.05. Can someone explain the discrepancy here? My two theories are: I have to do the step up procedure myself and use those results, OR, the bh applied in the package is using a different formula to determine significance and I should follow this formula instead.

For reference, I am comparing the median depths and temperatures of 4 shark species in the Atlantic ocean, with species sample sizes ranging between 14 and 32.

image
image

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant